Presently
before the Court is the motion of Defendants for summary
judgment on Plaintiff's claims that Defendants violated
the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination when she was
treated differently based on her gender and was terminated
for complaining about harassment by her supervisor. For the
reasons expressed below, Defendants' motion will be
granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

Defendant
Covenant Security Services, LTD. provides security and
protection services to clients at facilities across the
nation and in the State of New Jersey. Plaintiff Renee
Fountain began her employment with Covenant as a security
guard on October 2, 2010. During her employment with Covenant
and up to the date she was terminated from her employment -
March 29, 2013 - Plaintiff worked at the Mission Solutions
Engineering (“MSE”) facility located in
Moorestown, New Jersey. Covenant's primary client contact
at MSE was Francis McKenna, a MSE security operations
manager, and Plaintiff was supervised by Samuel Banks, the
Covenant site manager at MSE.

Plaintiff
and one other security guard were the only women employed by
Covenant as security guards at MSE. Within a month or two of
her employment with Covenant, Plaintiff contacted Defendant
Dominic Ferrara, Covenant's Vice-President of Operations,
by telephone to complain about Banks' harassment of her
because she is a woman. In April 2012, the other female
security guard resigned, leaving Plaintiff as the only woman
supervised by Banks at MSE.

In July
2012, MSE permanently consolidated two of its engineering
facilities in Moorestown into one facility. As a result, MSE
required less security guards. Covenant determined to reduce
all security guards' hours, rather than to lay off any
guards.

After
Covenant adjusted the hours of its security guards, Plaintiff
met with Ferrara and Ashely Dennis of Covenant's human
resources department to express her belief that her hours
were being reduced more than her male co-workers. Because she
was not informed about any investigation into her concerns,
on August 7, 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the New
Jersey Division on Civil Rights (“DCR”) regarding
the reduction of hours and her belief that her hours had been
reduced because she is a woman. Covenant ultimately
determined that Plaintiff's hours had been reduced to a
greater extent than her male co-workers and her schedule was
adjusted accordingly by the end of August.

Plaintiff
claims, however, that once she filed her complaint with the
DCR, she was continually discriminated against because she is
a woman, and retaliated against for filing the DCR complaint
and follow-up letters to Ferrara about Banks' harassing
behavior. Plaintiff claims that Banks mistreated her by
constantly humiliating, intimidating, sexually harassing, and
embarrassing her in the front lobby in front of other people.
Plaintiff also claims that Banks yelled at her and talked to
her in a condescending way. For example, he would put his
finger in her face and scream at her, disallow her to get
coffee and direct that her to make her own instant coffee
from the bathroom sink water, disallow her to eat lunch at
her desk, and blame her for the messy desk, all the while her
male counterparts were not similarly treated.

On
November 30, 2012, Banks issued a written “corrective
action” to Plaintiff because Plaintiff broke the chain
of command when she spoke to an MSE upper-management employee
about a Covenant security guard who had expressed a troubling
sentiment to Plaintiff. Plaintiff claims that the written
corrective action was discriminatory and retaliatory because
other male security guards, including Banks, spoke with MSE
employees and did not receive such a harsh sanction.

In
February 2013, McKenna advised Covenant that because of
budget cuts and fiscal uncertainty, MSE would be reducing its
security shifts by 66 hours per week. At that same time, on
February 4, 2013, McKenna sent an e-mail to Covenant
management addressing multiple complaints with regard to
Plaintiff's job performance: (a) Plaintiff had failed to
put out traffic cones as instructed; (b) Plaintiff was not
covering extra escort shifts as requested; (c) Plaintiff
advised an MSE employee “this place will be closing
down”; and (d) Plaintiff was “not a team player
and I'm fed up with it.” According to McKenna, his
complaints about Plaintiff were not limited to the complaints
in the February 4, 2013 email, but were “the straw that
broke the camel's back.” Plaintiff refutes the
items in McKenna's email, and contends that McKenna, whom
she claims knew about Plaintiff's DCR complaint and
complaints about Banks, was Banks' cohort who endeavored
to get rid of Plaintiff because she is a woman and a
“complainer.”

That
same month, Covenant reviewed all of the personnel files for
the security guards, which revealed that Plaintiff was the
only security guard with any disciplinary history - the
November 30, 2012 “corrective action.” Plaintiff
was also the only Covenant security guard about whom McKenna,
Covenant's primary client contact at MSE, had complained.
According to Covenant, it determined that the 66-hour shift
reduction required it to lay off certain employees, as it
would be infeasible and a “logistical nightmare”
to only reduce the hours of all security officers at MSE like
it had in the July 2012 consolidation. Covenant considered
terminating Plaintiff in February 2013, but decided to keep
her employed until the 66hour shift reduction went into
effect.[1] Plaintiff was terminated on March 29,
2013.

Based
on this series of events, Plaintiff claims that Covenant
violated the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A.
10:5-1 et seq., when it treated her differently because of
her gender, and when it retaliated against her because she
complained of disparate treatment. Plaintiff also alleges
that Ferrara is personally liable for NJLAD violations
because he aided and abetted the discrimination. Defendants
have moved for summary judgment in their favor, arguing that
Plaintiff cannot meet her prima facie case for
either her discriminatory treatment claim or retaliation
claim, and she cannot otherwise rebut their legitimate
business reason for her termination. Plaintiff has opposed
Defendants' motion.

DISCUSSION

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A.
Subject ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.